mr. baker spoke at some length with the anecdotes. i wanted to ask you whether your privacy concerns about that kind of system, the mandating that states cooperate and provided to one another about source documentation and in particular were certificates, do you have great concerns about that and whether they could be taken care of? how do you feel about that? >> we support the idea of the pilot and moving forward with the pilot. the main reason for the concerns is that the quality of the intimation in these databases is very, very poor quality. i noticed, my wife's and date of birth was wrong on my son's birth certificate. when i went to change it, they attended it at the bottom of the form but did not change the field itself. -- they appended it at the bottom. every state has different ways. if we are all going to connect the information together, which i agree that just connecting affirmation is fine, but the cost of correcting the information, getting it linked so it is standardized will be

mr. baker's response on thatç >> we' up from extremely low levels 11.2 million would be deplorg if we govel? at a good rate? ll it generate jobs? i say yes it wilgrow at a good re. yes, it will genereç a fair amount of jobs. you' absolutely right. at the end of that 12 months the unemployment rate is probab 9%. very disapinting.ç auto sales are probay 12.5, ry disappointing. but it'such stronger than the trajectory you're describing forç either the overall growth rator for the growthn jobs. >> again i see the source as weakness. theç noresidential cotruction numbers came out yesterday were vy weak. we have a collapng bubble therthat i think people haven't fuy appreciated the implications. when theousyb÷ market weens that takes away people's wealth. we're going to see more of a negative wealth effect people can't consume becse they haveç negative he caquit he can quity >> woodruff: whas at the core of the differce? is it you are lookinat the same numbs. >> forasting is a black art first of all. a right? and i would simply point o that if you go back theç last two deerecession, go b

mr. baker's response on that?estion. again we're talking about growth rates. is the economy going to grow af a good level? at a good rate? will it generate jobs? i say yes it will grow at a good rate. yes, it will generateç a fair amount of jobs. you're absolutely right. at the end of that 12 months the unemployment rate is probably 9%. very disappointing.ç auto sales are probably 12.5, very disappointing. but it's much stronger than the trajectory you're describing forç either the overall growth rate or for the growth in jobs. >> again i see the source as a weakness. theç non-residential construction numbers came out yesterday were very weak. we have a collapsing bubble there that i think people haven't fully appreciated the implications. when the housyb÷ market weakens that takes away people's wealth. we're going to see more of a negative wealth effect. people can't consume because they haveç negative he can quit he can quity. >> woodruff: what's at the core of the difference? is it you are looking at the

mr. baker's written testimony for the next panel states that the federal government should insist that statesense security rather than state level homeland security priorities. my question to you is would you like to address from your experience as a governor the financial burden of a real idea in its current form -- of real id in it's current form and whether states are properly and allocating their homeland security funds? >> i know about privatization and in vermont. it you may want to ask other states to respond to that. there is a great deal of accountability when we receive those resources. we believe we have deployed them responsibly. we are audited by the federal government, and i think we have done a good job. you have identified one of the key concerns, senator, that all states have especially in this challenging climate. we are facing tremendous pressure to balance the budgets to meet the needs of the people we serve. i am sure you have heard stories from all over the country about dramatic curtailment that states are facing because of the crisis. to impose an additional responsibi

mr. dingell: madam speaker, it is not long since a bunch of be a rigsists grasping new york bakers causedeplay of 1929 and a major collapse of the american economy. they were too big to fail, and as a result this nation has spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing them out for their wrongdoing. this is intolerable. if we cannot regulate these people, the least we can do is see that they are properly sized. i urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring the financial services industry stability act of 2010, which i am introducing today. as paul voker, former chairman of the federal reserve said, the institutions too big to fail would be that they would be shouldered by access to federal safety net in time of crisis. another former fed chair, my dear friend, alan greenspan, said, if they're too big to fail they're too big. similarly, marvin king, governor of the bank of england, in some banks are thought to be too big to fail, then in the words of a distinguished economist, they're too big. i urge my colleagues to help me cut down these scound rells to proper -- scound rales to proper s

mr. marlo from maryland. >> thank you both very much for your service. i have a button with a message that i cherish. it was given to me by help baker, a principal architect of the guidance system for the patriot missile. i knew the man primarily in his role as an unapologetic defender of the second amendment right and i never saw him without his hat and this button that said a politically incorrect and proud of it. indeed, the button was such a part of the happen baker that i attended his funeral and was pleased to see that it was there on him in his casket. i probably should be wearing that today because maybe i'm going to be politically incorrect. i suspect that these officers might have felt they were following policy because they had to policies which were in conflict. one of them was to be politically correct and not appear to profile. the other was to offer an honest and confident evaluation of the performance of the officer. now one cannot get inside their head but i would suspect they may have given more weight to the politically correct policy you don't profile. by the way we do profile and people understand that. if you a

mr. president, we are not on the plantation anymore. you don't have to back out to the master. if you want somebody in the job you need to fight for it. host: peter baker in a "the new york times" setting obama trying to turn around his presidency. inside the white house a debate ensued about what lessons to draw. trying to annette to much change our not enough? too liberal or too close to financial institutions? that is all we're asking you this morning. the next call is from detroit, randall on the independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i think the real problem is the parties in control republicans are in, they are in a year and we don't get anything done, then it put in democrats. i'm an independent. i think the real problem is everyone now thinks in terms only of their party. when do we start thinking about america, the whole of us? i thought health care reform was really about the 15% of the u.s. population that has no health insurance. these people are going in medical units and being stabilized and going home to die. we can do better than that. that is what all of these politicians ought to be working for. this thing is at a point -- th